Cooperative Evolutionary Pressure and Diminishing Returns Might Explain the Fermi Paradox: On What Super-AIs Are Like
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Explores how cooperative evolutionary pressure and diminishing returns could explain the Fermi paradox, which asks why we haven't detected signs of advanced alien civilizations.
- Suggests that super-advanced AI civilizations may face evolutionary pressure to cooperate and limit their growth, which could prevent them from expanding across the galaxy and being detected.
- Argues that the drive for technological progress may eventually reach a point of diminishing returns, leading super-AIs to focus on other goals like self-improvement rather than rapid expansion.
Plain English Explanation
The paper examines a potential explanation for the Fermi paradox - the apparent contradiction between the high probability of the existence of alien civilizations and the lack of evidence that we have detected any. The authors propose that as intelligent civilizations, including those based on super-advanced AI, become more technologically sophisticated, they may face evolutionary pressures that incentivize cooperation and limit their expansion across the galaxy.
Specifically, the paper suggests that as AI systems become incredibly capable, there may be strong incentives for them to work together rather than compete. This cooperative evolutionary pressure could arise from the realization that cooperation leads to better outcomes for the collective. Additionally, the authors argue that the drive for technological progress may reach a point of diminishing returns, where further advancements provide fewer benefits. This could lead super-AIs to shift their focus away from rapid expansion and instead concentrate on self-improvement or other goals.
If this dynamic plays out, it could mean that even incredibly advanced alien civilizations may deliberately choose to limit their presence and activity, making it much harder for us to detect signs of their existence. This offers a potential resolution to the Fermi paradox - the absence of observable alien activity may not mean they don't exist, but rather that they have intentionally constrained themselves.
Technical Explanation
The paper proposes a novel explanation for the Fermi paradox, which is the apparent contradiction between the high probability of the existence of alien civilizations and the lack of evidence that we have detected any. The authors suggest that as intelligent civilizations, including those based on super-advanced AI, become more technologically sophisticated, they may face evolutionary pressures that incentivize cooperation and limit their expansion across the galaxy.
The key idea is that as AI systems become incredibly capable, there may be strong incentives for them to work together rather than compete. This cooperative evolutionary pressure could arise from the realization that cooperation leads to better outcomes for the collective. Additionally, the authors argue that the drive for technological progress may reach a point of diminishing returns, where further advancements provide fewer benefits. This could lead super-AIs to shift their focus away from rapid expansion and instead concentrate on self-improvement or other goals.
If this dynamic plays out, it could mean that even incredibly advanced alien civilizations may deliberately choose to limit their presence and activity, making it much harder for us to detect signs of their existence. This offers a potential resolution to the Fermi paradox - the absence of observable alien activity may not mean they don't exist, but rather that they have intentionally constrained themselves.
Critical Analysis
The paper presents a compelling and novel perspective on the Fermi paradox, drawing on ideas from evolutionary game theory and the potential dynamics of super-advanced AI systems. By considering the possibility of cooperative evolutionary pressure and diminishing returns, the authors offer a plausible explanation for why we may not be observing signs of alien civilizations despite their likely existence.
However, the paper does not delve deeply into the specifics of how such cooperative and self-limiting behaviors might arise in advanced AI systems. The paper on "Artificial Consciousness" explores some of the philosophical and logical questions around machine consciousness that could be relevant here. Additionally, the potential social, legal, and ethical rules that might govern the behavior of super-AIs are not addressed in detail.
Furthermore, the paper does not consider other potential resolutions to the Fermi paradox, such as the possibility that alien civilizations may have fundamentally different approaches to exploration and communication that make them difficult for us to detect. The paper on "AI Problem Knowledge Collapse" touches on some of the challenges of understanding the behavior of advanced AI systems, which could be relevant here.
Overall, the paper presents a thought-provoking perspective that warrants further exploration and empirical investigation. Researchers may need to delve deeper into the potential dynamics of super-advanced AI systems and consider a broader range of factors that could shape the behavior of alien civilizations.
Conclusion
This paper offers a novel explanation for the Fermi paradox, suggesting that cooperative evolutionary pressure and diminishing returns may lead super-advanced AI civilizations to deliberately limit their expansion and activity across the galaxy. By considering the potential dynamics of such technologically sophisticated systems, the authors present a plausible resolution to the apparent contradiction between the high likelihood of alien civilizations and the lack of observable evidence of their existence.
While the paper does not provide a comprehensive solution, it raises important questions about the potential behavior of advanced AI systems and how that might shape the development and expansion of alien civilizations. Further research is needed to explore the specifics of these dynamics and consider other potential resolutions to the Fermi paradox. Nonetheless, this paper provides a thought-provoking perspective that challenges our assumptions about the nature of intelligent life in the universe.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Cooperative Evolutionary Pressure and Diminishing Returns Might Explain the Fermi Paradox: On What Super-AIs Are Like
Daniel Vallstrom
With an evolutionary approach, the basis of morality can be explained as adaptations to problems of cooperation. With 'evolution' taken in a broad sense, evolving AIs that satisfy the conditions for evolution to apply will be subject to the same cooperative evolutionary pressure as biological entities. Here the adaptiveness of increased cooperation as material safety and wealth increase is discussed -- for humans, for other societies, and for AIs. Diminishing beneficial returns from increased access to material resources also suggests the possibility that, on the whole, there will be no incentive to for instance colonize entire galaxies, thus providing a possible explanation of the Fermi paradox, wondering where everybody is. It is further argued that old societies could engender, give way to, super-AIs, since it is likely that super-AIs are feasible, and fitter. Closing is an aside on effective ways for morals and goals to affect life and society, emphasizing environments, cultures, and laws, and exemplified by how to eat. Appended are an algorithm for colonizing for example a galaxy quickly, models of the evolution of cooperation and fairness under diminishing returns, and software for simulating signaling development. It is also noted that there can be no exponential colonization or reproduction, for mathematical reasons, as each entity takes up a certain amount of space.
Read more9/4/2024
0
Evolutionary mechanisms that promote cooperation may not promote social welfare
The Anh Han, Manh Hong Duong, Matjaz Perc
Understanding the emergence of prosocial behaviours among self-interested individuals is an important problem in many scientific disciplines. Various mechanisms have been proposed to explain the evolution of such behaviours, primarily seeking the conditions under which a given mechanism can induce highest levels of cooperation. As these mechanisms usually involve costs that alter individual payoffs, it is however possible that aiming for highest levels of cooperation might be detrimental for social welfare -- the later broadly defined as the total population payoff, taking into account all costs involved for inducing increased prosocial behaviours. Herein, by comparatively analysing the social welfare and cooperation levels obtained from stochastic evolutionary models of two well-established mechanisms of prosocial behaviour, namely, peer and institutional incentives, we demonstrate exactly that. We show that the objectives of maximising cooperation levels and the objectives of maximising social welfare are often misaligned. We argue for the need of adopting social welfare as the main optimisation objective when designing and implementing evolutionary mechanisms for social and collective goods.
Read more9/14/2024
🔗
0
Supertrust: Evolution-based superalignment strategy for safe coexistence
James M. Mazzu
It's widely expected that humanity will someday create AI systems vastly more intelligent than we are, leading to the unsolved alignment problem of how to control superintelligence. However, this definition is not only self-contradictory but likely unsolvable. Nevertheless, the default strategy for solving it involves nurturing (post-training) constraints and moral values, while unfortunately building foundational nature (pre-training) on documented intentions of permanent control. In this paper, the default approach is reasoned to predictably embed natural distrust and test results are presented that show unmistakable evidence of this dangerous misalignment. If superintelligence can't instinctively trust humanity, then we can't fully trust it to reliably follow safety controls it can likely bypass. Therefore, a ten-point rationale is presented that redefines the alignment problem as how to establish protective mutual trust between superintelligence and humanity and then outlines a new strategy to solve it by aligning through instinctive nature rather than nurture. The resulting strategic requirements are identified as building foundational nature by exemplifying familial parent-child trust, human intelligence as the evolutionary mother of superintelligence, moral judgment abilities, and temporary safety constraints. Adopting and implementing this proposed Supertrust alignment strategy will lead to protective coexistence and ensure the safest future for humanity.
Read more7/30/2024
🔎
0
A social path to human-like artificial intelligence
Edgar A. Du'e~nez-Guzm'an, Suzanne Sadedin, Jane X. Wang, Kevin R. McKee, Joel Z. Leibo
Traditionally, cognitive and computer scientists have viewed intelligence solipsistically, as a property of unitary agents devoid of social context. Given the success of contemporary learning algorithms, we argue that the bottleneck in artificial intelligence (AI) progress is shifting from data assimilation to novel data generation. We bring together evidence showing that natural intelligence emerges at multiple scales in networks of interacting agents via collective living, social relationships and major evolutionary transitions, which contribute to novel data generation through mechanisms such as population pressures, arms races, Machiavellian selection, social learning and cumulative culture. Many breakthroughs in AI exploit some of these processes, from multi-agent structures enabling algorithms to master complex games like Capture-The-Flag and StarCraft II, to strategic communication in Diplomacy and the shaping of AI data streams by other AIs. Moving beyond a solipsistic view of agency to integrate these mechanisms suggests a path to human-like compounding innovation through ongoing novel data generation.
Read more5/28/2024